The movement to rename Minnesota’s Rum River has garnered support from unexpected corners, revealing a complex interplay between historical grievances, cultural sensitivity, and contemporary political agendas. This article delves into the details of the Rum River name-change movement and the Prohibition Party’s interest in Rum River name-change movement, examining the motivations behind the push to revert the river to its original Dakota name and the reasons why figures associated with the temperance movement are expressing their support.
The impetus for the name change stems from the belief that the current name, "Rum River," is a mistranslation and a profanation of the river’s original Dakota name, "Wakan," meaning "Spirit" or "Holy." Advocates argue that the name "Rum River" not only misrepresents the river’s historical and cultural significance but also perpetuates a harmful association with alcohol, a substance that has had a devastating impact on Native American communities.
LeMoine LaPointe, director of the Healthy Nations Program at the Minneapolis American Indian Center, articulated this sentiment succinctly in an Isanti County newspaper: "It’s important to the health of Native American people that the river be called by its original name. Rum is a pollutant, a destructive chemical. It’s not a poison river, it’s a holy river." LaPointe’s statement underscores the deep connection between the river’s name and the well-being of Native American communities, emphasizing the need to restore the river’s sacred identity.
The movement has gained traction within the Native American community, with the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community offering its explicit support. Jim Anderson, the co-cultural chair and historian for the community, expressed his belief that renaming the river "Wakpa Wakan" or "Spirit River" would be "a great stride in mending the circle that we share with all four colors of man." He further explained the demoralizing effect of using names like "rum" and "devil" to label sacred sites, stating that it forces them to explain to their children "why a place is named after the same things that helped to steal our land and language," a constant reminder of the cultural genocide perpetrated against Indian people. Changing the name back to the Dakota language, Anderson believes, will contribute to the healing process.
This perspective resonates with the experiences of many Native American communities who have suffered disproportionately from alcohol abuse. Melvin Eagle, the hereditary Chief of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, whose reservation is located at the headwaters of the Rum River, echoed these concerns, stating, "Alcoholism is not our traditional way. We need to try to pull together and away from alcohol because it is destroying our people." The connection between the river’s name and the ongoing struggle against alcoholism within Native American communities is a central argument for those advocating for the name change.
The Prohibition Party’s interest in Rum River name-change movement arises from a shared concern about the harmful effects of alcohol on society. The movement to rename the river aligns with the party’s historical mission to combat the influence of alcohol and promote temperance. The connection was made clear when Gene Amondson, the 2008 Presidential nominee for the National Prohibition Party, contacted the individual spearheading the name-change movement to offer his support. Amondson expressed interest in staying updated on the progress of the effort, indicating a clear alignment between the party’s goals and the objectives of the name-change campaign.
The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), a historically significant organization that played a major role in the original Prohibition movement, has also expressed support for the Rum River name-change effort. Rita Kaye Wert, the National President of the WCTU, contacted the movement’s leader to offer her support for the "good work" being done. Wert also expressed interest in receiving updates on the progress of the campaign.
The WCTU’s support highlights the historical context of the name-change movement. During Prohibition, there was a similar push to rename the river, driven by concerns about the addictive and harmful nature of rum. This historical precedent reinforces the idea that the river’s name is not merely a matter of semantics but a reflection of societal attitudes towards alcohol and its impact.
In a message to Wert, the movement’s leader wrote, "During Prohibition there was a national movement to change the name by those who saw the addictive and harmful nature of rum upon society. The addictive and harmful nature of rum upon society is another reason why I initiated and am spearheading the Rum River name-change movement." This statement directly links the current effort to the historical concerns of the Prohibition era.
Wert’s response underscores the WCTU’s continued commitment to combating the influence of alcohol. "While many news articles would declare that Prohibition was a failure, we in the WCTU know differently. There were many positive results. Unfortunately, our government folded when put under extreme pressure to do so. Alcohol remains the #1 threat to the family and society in general. God bless you in your quest to change the name of your river." This statement reveals the WCTU’s unwavering belief in the importance of temperance and its continued relevance in addressing contemporary social problems.
The involvement of figures like Amondson and Wert demonstrates the enduring legacy of the Prohibition movement and its continued relevance in contemporary debates about alcohol policy. While Prohibition itself was repealed, the concerns that motivated the movement – the harmful effects of alcohol on individuals, families, and communities – remain valid. The Prohibition Party’s interest in Rum River name-change movement is therefore a reflection of this enduring concern.
Beyond the political and historical dimensions, the Rum River name-change movement also highlights the importance of cultural sensitivity and the need to respect the traditions and beliefs of Native American communities. Restoring the river to its original Dakota name would be a symbolic act of reconciliation, acknowledging the historical injustices suffered by Native Americans and affirming their cultural heritage.
The support of figures like Albert Bates, an internationally renowned environmentalist, author, and indigenous peoples rights activist, further underscores the importance of the movement’s cultural and environmental dimensions. Bates, who has a long history of advocating for indigenous rights and environmental protection, recognized the significance of the Rum River name-change effort and offered his support.
Similarly, Greg Peterson, an author for Indian Country Today and media advisor for the Turtle Island Project, contacted the movement’s leader to express his support for bringing back Prohibition. Peterson acknowledged the devastating impact of alcohol on Native Americans and wished the movement continued success.
The diverse coalition of supporters – ranging from political activists and temperance advocates to environmentalists and indigenous rights activists – reflects the multifaceted nature of the Rum River name-change movement. It is a movement that encompasses historical grievances, cultural sensitivity, and contemporary concerns about the harmful effects of alcohol.
In conclusion, the Prohibition Party’s interest in Rum River name-change movement is driven by a shared concern about the harmful effects of alcohol on society and a desire to promote temperance. The movement itself is rooted in a desire to restore the river’s sacred identity, acknowledge the historical injustices suffered by Native Americans, and promote cultural sensitivity. The effort to rename the Rum River is a complex and multifaceted undertaking that reflects the ongoing struggle to address the social, cultural, and environmental challenges facing Native American communities and the broader society. The ultimate success of the Rum River name-change movement remains to be seen, but its significance as a symbol of cultural reconciliation and a testament to the enduring legacy of the Prohibition movement is undeniable.